U.s. Rejects Authority Of World Court

October 7, 1985|By Bernard Weinraub, The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The White House has decided that the United States will formally cease to recognize the authority of the World Court except in non-political cases, administration officials said on Sunday.

Officials said the measure had been approved by the National Security Council and that President Reagan was scheduled to sign it on Sunday or Monday. The details were quietly drawn up in recent weeks by Attorney General Edwin L. Meese and Secretary of State George P. Shultz and their staffs.

In effect, the administration move redefines and sharply limits the U.S. role in the World Court, officially called the International Court of Justice. Officials said the United States would continue to deal with the court on ``mutually submitted`` disputes involving commercial, legal, or border problems with other nations.

The impetus for Washington`s action was the case brought by Nicaragua against the United States that is now before the court.

Officials said the administration`s move would have no substantive impact on that case, in which Nicaragua charges that the United States controls and directs Nicaraguan rebels in violation of international law. The case, which grew out of the mining of Nicaraguan harbors, marked the first time the court had been asked to intervene in a current armed conflict. The United States initially argued that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter, and then in January Reagan decided to quit the case entirely.

Administration officials maintain that the composition of the 15-judge court, a United Nations agency that sits at The Hague, is essentially hostile to the United States and that many member nations, including the Soviet Union and Cuba, have failed to accept the tribunal`s jurisdiction in political matters. The United States has listed France, Italy, West Germany, and Spain as countries that ``have not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction`` of the court.

Officials emphasize the partial nature of the U.S. withdrawal. They say that Washington will adhere to the court`s rulings in commercial and other cases in which it and another government mutually submit their dispute. Last October, for example, the court settled a two-decade-old territorial dispute between Canada and the U.S.

The distinction between political and non-political cases can frequently be blurred, officials say. But the main U.S. concern involves cases in which it could be charged with violation of international law, such as in the Nicaraguan suit. Other instances of countries rejecting World Court jurisdiction because of the political nature of the cases include France`s rejection of charges brought by New Zealand and Australia in the 1970s over the French nuclear testing program.

Officials said that as far as they knew the move to limit the U.S. role in the court did not require congressional approval. They added that they did not expect the American judge on the court, Stephen M. Schwebel, to be affected by the decision. Other countries that do not recognize the court`s jurisdiction in political disputes also continue to have judges sitting on the panel. Similarly, American financial contributions to the court are not expected to change.